Prosecution of Domestic Violence Cases in the United States, 1993-1994 (ICPSR 2556)

Citation

Rebovich, Donald, Adams, Bonney, and Weist, Martha. Prosecution of Domestic Violence Cases in the United States, 1993-1994. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2006-03-30. https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR02556.v1

The purpose of this project was to evaluate the level of
domestic violence prosecution throughout the United States and to
promote effective prosecution approaches through dissemination of
information. The project sought to identify and connect local
attorneys' needs for information with the best knowledge available on
the most effective prosecution methods. In order to appraise domestic
violence prosecution in the United States, the researchers mailed a
survey to a nationally-representative sample of prosecutors to assess
prosecution strategies in domestic violence cases (Part 1,
Prosecutors' Survey Data). Smaller jurisdictions had such a low
response rate to the initial survey that a modified follow-up survey
(Part 2, Prosecutors' Follow-Up Data) was administered to those
jurisdictions. From these surveys, the researchers identified three
sites with pioneering specialized domestic violence prosecution
programs: Duluth, Minnesota, King County, Washington, and San
Francisco, California. In these three sites, the researchers then
conducted a case file analysis of a random sample of domestic violence
cases (Part 3, Case File Data). A survey of a random sample of female
victims was also undertaken in King County and San Francisco (Part 4,
Victim Interview Data). In addition, the researchers conducted on-site
evaluations of these three specialized programs in which they
interviewed staff about the scope of the domestic violence problem,
domestic violence support personnel, the impact of the program on the
domestic violence problem, and recommendations for the future. The
qualitative data collected from these evaluations are provided only in
the codebook for this collection. Parts 1 and 2, the Prosecutors'
Surveys, contain variables about case management, case screening and
charging, pretrial release policies, post-charge diversion, trial,
sentencing options, victim support programs, and office and
jurisdiction demographics. Questions cover the volume of domestic
violence prosecutions, formal protocols for domestic violence
prosecution, ways to deal with uncooperative victims, pro-arrest and
no-drop policies, protection orders, types of evidence used, and
collaboration with other organizations to prosecute domestic violence
cases. In addition, Part 1 includes variables on diversion programs,
victim noncompliance, substance abuse problems, victim support
programs, and plea negotiations. Variables in Part 3, Case File Data,
deal with reporting, initial and final charges, injuries sustained,
weapons used, evidence available, protection orders issued, victim
cooperation, police testimony, disposition, sentence, costs, and
restitution for each domestic violence case. Part 4, Victim Interview
Data, includes variables concerning victims' employment history,
number of children, and substance abuse, opinions about the charges
against the defendant, decision-making in the case, and prosecution
strategies, and victims' participation in the case, amount of support
from and contact with criminal justice agencies, safety concerns, and
performance evaluations of various levels of the criminal justice
system.

Rebovich, Donald, Adams, Bonney, and Weist, Martha. Prosecution of Domestic Violence Cases in the United States, 1993-1994. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2006-03-30. https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR02556.v1

The user guide, codebook, and data collection
instruments are provided as a Portable Document Format (PDF) file. The
PDF file format was developed by Adobe Systems Incorporated and can be
accessed using PDF reader software, such as the Adobe Acrobat
Reader. Information on how to obtain a copy of the Acrobat Reader is
provided through the ICPSR Website on the Internet.

The purpose of this project was to evaluate the
level of domestic violence prosecution throughout the United States
and to promote effective prosecution approaches through dissemination
of information. The project sought to identify and connect local
attorneys' needs for information with the best knowledge available on
the most effective prosecution methods. The general objectives of the
study were to: (1) assess the state of domestic violence prosecution
programs, both formal and informal, throughout the United States, (2)
identify the domestic violence prosecution needs of local prosecutors,
(3) contrast the results of the national assessment with case study
examinations of a sample of leading specialized programs for domestic
violence prosecution, and (4) place the findings culled from local
prosecutors against the backdrop of experiences of domestic violence
victims whose cases have been processed through these modernized
programs.

In order to appraise domestic violence prosecution
in the United States, the researchers mailed a self-administered
national survey on domestic violence prosecution to a representative
cross-section of local prosecutors' offices nationwide (Part 1,
Prosecutors' Survey Data). Smaller jurisdictions had such a low
response rate to the initial survey that a modified follow-up survey
(Part 2, Prosecutors' Follow-Up Data) was administered to those
jurisdictions. From these surveys, three sites with pioneering,
specialized domestic violence prosecution programs were identified:
Duluth, Minnesota, King County, Washington, and San Francisco,
California. Next, case file data were collected from a random sample
of cases disposed from these three sites. Information was gathered on
discovery and report, violation and charging, case processing,
disposition and sentencing, and defendant and victim
characteristics. Victim interviews were also conducted in King County
and San Francisco. Victims were chosen from a random sample of
disposed cases for which case file data were collected. Those
respondents willing to participate in telephone interviews were asked
questions about their demographic characteristics, experiences with
the criminal justice system, victim safety issues, and level of
interaction with criminal justice and other professionals. Victim
interviews were not conducted at the Duluth site because of
difficulties in locating potential respondents. In addition, the
researchers conducted on-site evaluations of these three specialized
programs in which they interviewed staff about the scope of the
domestic violence problem, domestic violence support personnel, the
impact of the program on the domestic violence problem, and
recommendations for the future. The qualitative data collected from
these evaluations are provided only in the codebook for this
collection.

Parts 1 and 2: All prosecutors in the United States. Part
3: Domestic violence cases prosecuted in Duluth, Minnesota, King
County, Washington, and San Francisco, California. Part 4: Victims of
domestic violence in King County, Washington, and San Francisco,
California.

For the prosecutors' surveys, the response rates
were 68 percent for Part 1 (large jurisdictions) and 48 percent for
Part 2 (small jurisdictions). For the victim surveys, Part 4, the
response rate was 82 percent in King County, Washington, and 38
percent in San Francisco, California.

2018-02-15 The citation of this study may have changed due to the new version control system that has been implemented. The previous citation was:

Rebovich, Donald, Bonney Adams, and Martha Weist. PROSECUTION OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CASES IN THE UNITED STATES, 1993-1994. ICPSR version. Alexandria, VA: American Prosecutors Research Institute [producer], 1996. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2000. http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR02556.v1

2006-03-30 File CB2556.ALL.PDF was removed from any previous datasets and flagged as a study-level file, so that it will accompany all downloads.

2005-11-04 On 2005-03-14 new files were added to one
or more datasets. These files included additional setup files as well
as one or more of the following: SAS program, SAS transport, SPSS portable,
and Stata system files. The metadata record was revised 2005-11-04 to
reflect these additions.

2000-01-18 ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection:

Standardized missing values.

Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes.

Notes

The public-use data files in this collection are available for access by the general public. Access does not require affiliation with an ICPSR member institution.

The citation of this study may have changed due to the new version control system that has been implemented.

This website is funded through Inter-agency agreements through the Bureau of
Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention of
the Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Neither the U.S. Department of Justice nor any of its
components operate, control, are responsible for, or necessarily endorse, this website (including, without limitation,
its content, technical infrastructure, and policies, and any services or tools provided).